Activist monarchy runs contrary to organic politics and for that I am not too comfortable of having monarchs meddling in business of the state. Despite that, some actions by monarch may coincide with favorable consequences like giving new breath to federalism but the involvement of monarchs in politics remains an inorganic decision. The latest case of activist monarch revolves around the royal house of Perak over-ruling the decision of the Menteri Besar to remove the state religion department director.[1] While the down side of this episode is about having the monarchy institution in the picture, the bright side of the equation provides an opportunity for secularism.
Secularism, if its definition has to be clarified, aims to separate the state from religious beliefs and vice versa. A secular state is a state neutral of religious values. As further argument for secularism goes, religious belief is a personal matter and the best way to maintain it that way and protect religious freedom is to have a secular state.
The situation in Perak at the moment basically separates religion, or at least some part of it, from the purview of the executive branch of the government. If the Sultan has the ultimate say in religious matters, that would basically make the religious department answerable only to the Sultan while the executive is left with little influence in the matter. In the state of Perak where the monarchy takes a progressive political stance while the head of the executive is a member of an Islamist political party, I cannot help but maintain a slight inclination to stand with the monarch, even when I distrust him. In my opinion, from a certain point of view, this path may lead to secularism. In my opinion, this helps in preventing PAS from enlarging the role of religion in our society through coercion.
This perspective however assumes that the monarchy institution itself is not part of the state and that only the executive, judiciary and the legislative branches of government are considered as part of the state. The truth is, the monarchy together with the three branches are the institutions of the state.
In the purest sense of the word, we are still far away from secularism. Yet, this tussle between the Sultan and the Menteri Besar, especially when the executive is backing down,[2] creates an opportunity to advance secularism in the Malaysian society. It is an odd path but it is a path nonetheless.
But of course, there is no guarantee that the monarch himself has liberty in his mind. For all we know, the Sultan may only be interested in advancing the influence of the monarchy which has long waned.
[1] — IPOH, May 2 (Bernama) — The Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, today ordered Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin to immediately retract the 24-hour tranfer order issued to Perak Islamic Religious Department director Datuk Jamry Sury on Tuesday. [Sultan Azlan Shah Orders Transfer Order On JAIP Director Retracted. Bernama. May 2 2008]
[2] — IPOH: The Mentri Besar will apologise to the Sultan of Perak over the hasty transfer of Perak Religious Department (JAIP) director Datuk Jamry Sury without first consulting the Ruler, who is the head of Islam in the state.
[…]
Meanwhile, Jamry has yet to receive a letter reinstating him as JAIP director, although he said he has been asked to meet state secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim tomorrow.[Perak MB to apologise to Sultan of Perak. The Star. May 4 2008]
7 replies on “[1639] Of an odd path to secularism”
[…] The episode began with the removal of the director of Perak religious department from office. The Sultan successfully argued that the monarchy alone has the absolute power over the director office, forcing the PAS administration to back off from its intention to exert control over the state religious department. The story does not end with the executive having a black eye however. It really exploded when Karpal Singh of DAP insisted that the Sultan has no power to overturn the decision of the state executive.[1] […]
[…] episode began with the removal of the director of Perak religious department from office. The Sultan successfully argued that the […]
Isn’t that itself is a proof that the director is independent vis-a-vis the executive?
It doesn’t matter who appointed him in the first place as long as the office which holds the ultimate authority over the department (in this case, it seems it is the sultan), is independent. The point is that the department is not answerable to the executive. That is the whole point of independence from the executive.
I know what you were referring to, but that still doesn’t change the fact that the person whom that dept power is vested in is a BN appointee.
I mean, if he is not BN-affiliated, then why is he having problems working for PR?
Dear Sigma,
I’m referring to structural issue, i.e. the office of the director is answerable to the sultan rather than the executive. It is the office that matters, not the person.
The religion department is a joke anyway. After few hundred struggle of Bishop vs monarch, European country finally get rid of their “two king” system.
Malaysia religion department are no different than this two king mess. As some has noted, normally the Sultan are the caliph, except now the federal government take over the caliph roles.
I will keep my finger crossed until enough people realise and start rally to abolish the ridiculous religion department.
What you’re saying lies on the foundation that that state religion dept head is politically neutral (as it was supposed to be). But this is not the case. Jamry Sury is clearly appointed by BN based on political patronage reasons.
So fine, the monarch can keep his jurisdiction on religious matters, but at least do that through ensuring a politically-neutral director takes Jamry’s place. The best solution to this should be releasing Jamry and letting the palace appoint a new director, with the executive having nothing to do with it.